Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Towns of Alberta/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was removed by User:Sephiroth BCR 22:23, 11 November 2008 [1].

---

Towns of Alberta

Notified: Qyd, WP:ALBERTA, WP:CANADIAN COMMUNITES, WP:CANADA.

I believe that the article fails FL criterias 1, a little bit of 2, 3, 5, and 6. Also, the list is out-of-date and has not been edited since July of this year. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 06:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• It's not out of date, the 2006 Census is the latest Canadian Census. Also, there has not been any change in incorporation status of any town in Alberta lately, so the list is very much up to date. Any specific concerns? --Qyd (talk) 13:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delist:
  • The intro certainly needs work; "... are generally formed from communities with populations of at least 1000 people." But later it implies that 1000 is the minimum; so wouldn't they all be formed from ones of over 1000? Unless the first sentence means, that towns in Alberta are generally at least 1000 people... and it never touches on if the town is a provincial term, or federal term, or what... we need much better explanation of what a Town is. "A higher density" - Higher than what? Needs either a comparison or a new word.
  • Some of the names in the image are nearly impossible to read, but that's a bit harder to fix than the intro.
  • The sorting is wrong; when I sort by name, Athabasca shows up as the fourth name down, when it's the first alphabetically.
  • Is Lac La Biche a town or not? If it was dissolved, it should be removed from the table.
  • What is a "stand-alone municipality"?
  • The footer about sorting isn't needed.
  • The footer about sources is better handled ... elsewhere, in a general references section or something. Maybe above the table.
  • Speaking of above the table, I see no point for the alpha TOC. There aren't so many entries that a page up or page down in any direction won't take you halfway through the alphabet, and it's useless if you sort by anything other than alphabetically.
  • At least some of the 'see alsos' seem redundant with the footer box, but that may not be an important issue.
  • That's all that leaps out at me, this needs some work to remain featured. --Golbez (talk) 06:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Delist, until Golbez's comments are resolved. iMatthew 23:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.